Overland Content Feedback Thread

Fingolfinn01 · January 21

We are not saying get rid of normal mode. We are saying we want difficulty settings on quests. I am not sure we will ever get this. However i do believe that this mega thread means that they at least have some ideas about the overland. And one day they will surprise us in global reveal.

Muizer · January 21

from the Massively Overpowered interview:

Similarly, open-world content is balanced for casual play; ZOS is not going to make the open-world game or story content too hard because they don’t want people to quit. People who want challenge are funneled into dungeons.

That is dev speak for "We're not going to make any changes to overland difficulty." It's not just that it is hard, or that they don't have plans right now. They're fundamentally against it because it goes against some bigger concept they adhere to. I think we can abandon all hope/fear of this happening in any way.

Not saying that because I either hope or fear it personally. Just that we'll have to deal with it and that arguing about it whether it should happen and how is entirely unrelated from ESO's actual future, at least for years to come.

Zenirith · January 21

I'll be honest: for the 10th anniversary I was expecting the VET overland, which would have given those who want the option to replay this fantastic game in a more satisfying way. It would have been a good way to breathe life into the old zones.

While I love ESO quests, the lack of any form of difficulty in them is slowly eclipsing my desire to explore new areas. Among the threats I face there is no real challenge and this is ruining my personal gaming experience. Apparently I'm not the only one with this problem.

Plus I can say that all this can drive away new potential players. I have always recommended ESO to my friends but after a while they abandoned it because there is no real challenge in our stories.
Sure, dungeons and trials exist ( and not everyone is interested in them...not from the beginning ), but why should group content be limited to this? It's an MMO, after all.

The quests are already wonderful, but in my opinion the pleasure of facing real bosses would make everything memorable and would push me to play again with other characters.

disky · January 21

Aliniel wrote: »

Couldnt have said it better myself. There is an ocean of difference between brain dead content, and casual. They are doubling down on face roll content, which is extremely disappointing. Guess I will not be spending any more on this game. What a shame. Will reconsider purchases from them in the future.

I hate to say it but I've lost an entire guild due to boredom. The leader of my favorite guild left, the co-founders reformed it to maintain the group but don't play anymore, and the new members I was hanging out with disappeared as well. This was a fairly large guild with a lot of active members. If there were something that people could achieve together that wasn't just repeatable content, I am certain it would be a draw for them.

One Tamriel was great for the game in my opinion, but it missed a critical piece of the puzzle. Opening up the world to exploration for everyone is in the spirit of the Elder Scrolls games, but the motivation has to be there and while the story is enough for some, for a lot of us the challenge has to be there in equal measure.

Deserrick · January 21

After playing with all 5 free classes, I can once again say that Overland is very difficult if one picks skills and equipment by what looks and sounds fun instead of by optimization research. Difficulty options in both directions (like the sliders in the main series) would benefit not only those who wish to struggle after being optimized, but also those who enjoy the freedom to roleplay without having to drop suboptimal character concepts.

Elsonso · January 21

Deserrick wrote: »

After playing with all 5 free classes, I can once again say that Overland is very difficult if one picks skills and equipment by what looks and sounds fun instead of by optimization research. Difficulty options in both directions (like the sliders in the main series) would benefit not only those who wish to struggle after being optimized, but also those who enjoy the freedom to roleplay without having to drop suboptimal character concepts.

Yes.

I think I probably made the case somewhere in the 200 previous pages for a "slider" that went down below the current difficulty.

At the time, my thinking was that this end of the slider would be used more than the other end. Not just by new players, but also by experienced and long time players.

Overland difficulty right now is terribly annoying if not there to fight things. It makes me wish for the days of WoW when lower level zone monsters would leave you alone, and you got no XP for killing them. It was much easier to move around without every wolf you come across wanting to commit suicide.

I honestly think there is more of a market for "easier overland" than there is for "harder overland".

(edit: made it more clear that I was agreeing)

Zenirith · January 21

Deserrick wrote: »

After playing with all 5 free classes, I can once again say that Overland is very difficult if one picks skills and equipment by what looks and sounds fun instead of by optimization research. Difficulty options in both directions (like the sliders in the main series) would benefit not only those who wish to struggle after being optimized, but also those who enjoy the freedom to roleplay without having to drop suboptimal character concepts.

I'm not going against what you say but I'm only speaking for myself: for now I'm using a non-optimized build. My bosmer wears Green Pact, Essence Thief, Wild Hunt and fights using sword and shield ( atronach mundus for, well, tanky stuff in dungeons ). I can still beat WBs alone ( it just takes longer ) so let's not even talk about story bosses…

I might have difficulty without food and CP but do I really want to do it? Do I really have to penalize myself like this to overcome boredom? Why should I make things difficult for myself when other players next to me can end the same fight with just a few scratches? I'm also a fan of "play as you want", but the problem remains: overland content is too easy as it is.

In any case, I wouldn’t accept VET overland if it wasn’t an option. I don't want to take anything away from anyone. I just want an addition to the game that I love and bring more people into it.

disky · January 21

Deserrick wrote: »

Difficulty options in both directions (like the sliders in the main series) would benefit not only those who wish to struggle after being optimized, but also those who enjoy the freedom to roleplay without having to drop suboptimal character concepts.

Elsonso wrote: »

I honestly think there is more of a market for "easier overland" than there is for "harder overland".

I want to agree with this idea, but the issue I have with it is that a base-level challenge has to be established if you're going to have interaction between players in an MMO setting. Consider two people fighting a tough monster together, one using base-level difficulty and another that has enabled a setting which lowers the difficulty below the base-level. If the player using this mode is able to smash through the monster with minimal effort, that also has an impact on the other player's experience because it effectively lowers the challenge for them as well.

A challenge increase is less problematic because the base-level challenge has always been established and even as it is now, it's still somewhat dependent on the skill of the player. If you have a skilled player who intentionally lowers the difficulty, then the game becomes incredibly easy for everyone around them. I don't expect that an unskilled player would enable a harder challenge, but if they did, it wouldn't affect the experience of their fellow players nearly as dramatically as the opposite scenario because their contribution would already be low.

I still think this works for dungeons however, because it's instanced content and the rewards and experience for everyone in the instance would be understood by everyone prior to joining the instance. I'm hyped for dungeon story mode, honestly...but I feel like it diminishes the strength of the claim that people who want a challenge should seek out dungeons. If players who want an easier dungeon experience are being catered to, why can't those who want a challenge get something as well?

Jammy420 · January 22

erdYrrson wrote: »

I agree to disagree.

Disagreeing with the facts doesn't change the facts.

Aliniel wrote: »

I am baffled by the fact there are people who are happy about playing an expansion for 10+ hours, and then finally reaching the epic conclusion and facing the daedric prince who was manipulating everyone and everything into invading and enslaving or destoying the world, only to defeat him in 5 seconds. He can't even finish his dialog in 5s.

Same. There is supposed to be some sort of tamriel wide threat we are fighting, and then they get blown over in 6 seconds by gear I found in the trash can.

So epic. Much wow.

TaSheen wrote: »

Hmm. Vandacia took me numerous tries over a week or thereabouts to finally get past him. The Ascendent Magus took me longer than that. I'm not a "new player" - this is my 6th year. I don't have great internet - all that's available where I live (yes, in the lower 48) is satellite, otherwise known as "built in mega-ping". Also, I'm 76 years old, and my reflexes suck. So using the "sidekick" powers we're given (like Abnur's shield, the Ambition, the heal or whatever from Ayrenn) require much less ping than I have to actually get them to work.

I never did get past Nokvroz.... I've never been good at twitchy combat, and it's worse now that I'm so much older - and living where there's no "real broadband" is also problmeatic.

I'm not even able to reliably kill a 1 gem troll in 5 seconds. I would LOVE to be able to kill story quest bosses in one go, in less than a minute. Not happening!

Just because you have a bad situation does not mean the entire population should suffer completely forgettable content. There is only so much accessibility can do for that many problems.

Elsonso wrote: »

Aliniel wrote: »

I am baffled by the fact there are people who are happy about playing an expansion for 10+ hours, and then finally reaching the epic conclusion and facing the daedric prince who was manipulating everyone and everything into invading and enslaving or destoying the world, only to defeat him in 5 seconds. He can't even finish his dialog in 5s.

Necrom had a fairly tough boss. I suspect that the number of people who killed them in 5 seconds was smaller than the number who never did and rage quit.

That was only because there were mechanics in play to prevent that from happening. If there were more creative, interesting mechanics such as those everywhere else with overland boss fights, this thread would not exist.

valenwood_vegan wrote: »

Aliniel wrote: »

I am baffled by the fact there are people who are happy about playing an expansion for 10+ hours, and then finally reaching the epic conclusion and facing the daedric prince who was manipulating everyone and everything into invading and enslaving or destoying the world, only to defeat him in 5 seconds. He can't even finish his dialog in 5s.

I mean I want something like a difficulty slider or increased difficulty instances in overland, but it's quite possible that their data is telling them that only a minority engages in more difficult parts of the game. I certainly don't know, but it is very likely that "killing the necrom questline boss in 5 seconds" is not a typical experience. I have seen many posts on here to the contrary.

I sincerely hope that ZoS continues to look at this issue and ways to make the overland experience more satisfying for vet players, but just because YOU found it easy does not mean other people did.

If a minority portion of the game is constantly filled up, then it will still seem that a minority play it. It is the same as saying not that many people play cyro, when it is not possible for more to log in. Of course the numbers are skewed. If 98 percent of the game is overland, it will always look like most people play it and are fine with it, but have they ever sent out a public poll on how we feel about it? They have everyone's email addresses, they could EASILY send out a poll to all active players, and ask what they think of overland, but they do not, so to me the notion that " the majority like it this easy " is extremely suspect.

Jammy420 · January 22

Deserrick wrote: »

After playing with all 5 free classes, I can once again say that Overland is very difficult if one picks skills and equipment by what looks and sounds fun instead of by optimization research. Difficulty options in both directions (like the sliders in the main series) would benefit not only those who wish to struggle after being optimized, but also those who enjoy the freedom to roleplay without having to drop suboptimal character concepts.

I did this for a pure vampire nightblade brawler, and still could hit my face against the keyboard and win. Same on my newest character, who only uses trash white gear. Either I want to see proof, or I simply do not believe you. Many people have posted video proving how easy it is, yet the ones saying it is so difficult never do.

disky wrote: »

Aliniel wrote: »

Couldnt have said it better myself. There is an ocean of difference between brain dead content, and casual. They are doubling down on face roll content, which is extremely disappointing. Guess I will not be spending any more on this game. What a shame. Will reconsider purchases from them in the future.

I hate to say it but I've lost an entire guild due to boredom. The leader of my favorite guild left, the co-founders reformed it to maintain the group but don't play anymore, and the new members I was hanging out with disappeared as well. This was a fairly large guild with a lot of active members. If there were something that people could achieve together that wasn't just repeatable content, I am certain it would be a draw for them.

One Tamriel was great for the game in my opinion, but it missed a critical piece of the puzzle. Opening up the world to exploration for everyone is in the spirit of the Elder Scrolls games, but the motivation has to be there and while the story is enough for some, for a lot of us the challenge has to be there in equal measure.

I legit can be full energy, right after the gym, and fall asleep within 5 minutes of doing overland. A real shame considering how much work they put into world crafting.

Zenirith wrote: »

Deserrick wrote: »

After playing with all 5 free classes, I can once again say that Overland is very difficult if one picks skills and equipment by what looks and sounds fun instead of by optimization research. Difficulty options in both directions (like the sliders in the main series) would benefit not only those who wish to struggle after being optimized, but also those who enjoy the freedom to roleplay without having to drop suboptimal character concepts.

I'm not going against what you say but I'm only speaking for myself: for now I'm using a non-optimized build. My bosmer wears Green Pact, Essence Thief, Wild Hunt and fights using sword and shield ( atronach mundus for, well, tanky stuff in dungeons ). I can still beat WBs alone ( it just takes longer ) so let's not even talk about story bosses…

I might have difficulty without food and CP but do I really want to do it? Do I really have to penalize myself like this to overcome boredom? Why should I make things difficult for myself when other players next to me can end the same fight with just a few scratches? I'm also a fan of "play as you want", but the problem remains: overland content is too easy as it is.

In any case, I wouldn’t accept VET overland if it wasn’t an option. I don't want to take anything away from anyone. I just want an addition to the game that I love and bring more people into it.

People have become allergic to practicing nowadays, its crazy. Practice makes perfect is like a cardinal sin to them.

spartaxoxo · January 22

A player who skips through dialogue as fast as possible and only plays quests that give skill points is easily dismissed as a player who doesn't want to actually be there.

Similarly, a player that isn't skipping through the dialogue and plays all the quests, sometimes on multiple characters, can easily be understood to enjoy questing.

A person who spends the majority of their time questing and doing overland while rarely partaking in other content can also easily understood to enjoy questing.

The devs can see all of these things. They know which content we're doing. They know which percentage of the playerbase engages in harder content.

They know who's buying what too.

And they can see the vast majority of the playerbase engage with overland in a way that shows they enjoy it.

They devs know the majority of the playerbase enjoys overland. But, the majority of the playerbase doesn't do PvP. And that's a big part of the game's future. So, I don't see why it being a minority of players that dislike it should mean that we cannot get an optional system.

The only thing the majority liking it tells me is that it shouldn't be a forced change. But there's plenty of ways to add options.

TaSheen · January 22

Jammy420 wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

Hmm. Vandacia took me numerous tries over a week or thereabouts to finally get past him. The Ascendent Magus took me longer than that. I'm not a "new player" - this is my 6th year. I don't have great internet - all that's available where I live (yes, in the lower 48) is satellite, otherwise known as "built in mega-ping". Also, I'm 76 years old, and my reflexes suck. So using the "sidekick" powers we're given (like Abnur's shield, the Ambition, the heal or whatever from Ayrenn) require much less ping than I have to actually get them to work.

I never did get past Nokvroz.... I've never been good at twitchy combat, and it's worse now that I'm so much older - and living where there's no "real broadband" is also problmeatic.

I'm not even able to reliably kill a 1 gem troll in 5 seconds. I would LOVE to be able to kill story quest bosses in one go, in less than a minute. Not happening!

Just because you have a bad situation does not mean the entire population should suffer completely forgettable content. There is only so much accessibility can do for that many problems.

Eh, I'm well aware. I'm fine with optional harder overland difficulty - for however much of the "entire population" would use it. But there's always someone saying "anyone can kill X in no time at all" (paraphrased), and I feel as if I also get to post how that doesn't happen for me, y'know? We are not all alike, for numerous reasons.

Elsonso · January 22

spartaxoxo wrote: »

They devs know the majority of the playerbase enjoys overland. But, the majority of the playerbase doesn't do PvP. And that's a big part of the game's future. So, I don't see why it being a minority of players that dislike it should mean that we cannot get an optional system.

The only thing the majority liking it tells me is that it shouldn't be a forced change. But there's plenty of ways to add options.

Speaking as a software developer (not for or at ZOS), options don't always make sense. In this case, there are two groups, one that wants harder overland, and one that wants optional difficulty. The two may overlap and not be the same, as not everyone would want to use the option to make overland harder. The option itself is an additional feature, and so optional features are generally more expensive than doing just the feature. To me, optional only make sense if the number of additional people who want the option is great enough to justify doing both the feature and the option.

I can't say that ZOS feels the same as I do, but I can certainly understand if they do.

spartaxoxo · January 22

Elsonso wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

They devs know the majority of the playerbase enjoys overland. But, the majority of the playerbase doesn't do PvP. And that's a big part of the game's future. So, I don't see why it being a minority of players that dislike it should mean that we cannot get an optional system.

The only thing the majority liking it tells me is that it shouldn't be a forced change. But there's plenty of ways to add options.

Speaking as a software developer (not byfor or at ZOS), options don't always make sense. In this case, there are two groups, one that wants harder overland, and one that wants optional difficulty. The two may overlap and not be the same, as not everyone would want to use the option to make overland harder. The option itself is an additional feature, and so optional features are generally more expensive than doing just the feature. To me, optional only make sense if the number of additional people who want the option is great enough to justify doing both the feature and the option.

I can't say that ZOS feels the same as I do, but I can certainly understand if they do.

Options makes more sense for the playerbase they have. It's what LOTRO did and it worked out great for that game. Difficulty options tend to work well in every game they are featured in and allow for a broader audience.

They already know that forcing it would lose players. And have already ruled it out. It's not something that would please hardly anyone, so it's not worth considering imo.

Jammy420 · January 22

spartaxoxo wrote: »

A player who skips through dialogue as fast as possible and only plays quests that give skill points is easily dismissed as a player who doesn't want to actually be there.

Similarly, a player that isn't skipping through the dialogue and plays all the quests, sometimes on multiple characters, can easily be understood to enjoy questing.

A person who spends the majority of their time questing and doing overland while rarely partaking in other content can also easily understood to enjoy questing.

The devs can see all of these things. They know which content we're doing. They know which percentage of the playerbase engages in harder content.

They know who's buying what too.

And they can see the vast majority of the playerbase engage with overland in a way that shows they enjoy it.

They devs know the majority of the playerbase enjoys overland. But, the majority of the playerbase doesn't do PvP. And that's a big part of the game's future. So, I don't see why it being a minority of players that dislike it should mean that we cannot get an optional system.

The only thing the majority liking it tells me is that it shouldn't be a forced change. But there's plenty of ways to add options.

Just like they knew what they were doing with the performance patch in 2019. A performance patch that broke the game when it came to group content entirely. Or when they did a years' worth of cyro tests at our expense, tanking the pvp population, because everyone already told them those tests would not solve the issue, only for them to admit to it years later and upgrade the server hardware?

The devs do a respectable job in a lot of places, but they are not all knowing, and they do not always know best.

spartaxoxo · January 22

Jammy420 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

A player who skips through dialogue as fast as possible and only plays quests that give skill points is easily dismissed as a player who doesn't want to actually be there.

Similarly, a player that isn't skipping through the dialogue and plays all the quests, sometimes on multiple characters, can easily be understood to enjoy questing.

A person who spends the majority of their time questing and doing overland while rarely partaking in other content can also easily understood to enjoy questing.

The devs can see all of these things. They know which content we're doing. They know which percentage of the playerbase engages in harder content.

They know who's buying what too.

And they can see the vast majority of the playerbase engage with overland in a way that shows they enjoy it.

They devs know the majority of the playerbase enjoys overland. But, the majority of the playerbase doesn't do PvP. And that's a big part of the game's future. So, I don't see why it being a minority of players that dislike it should mean that we cannot get an optional system.

The only thing the majority liking it tells me is that it shouldn't be a forced change. But there's plenty of ways to add options.

Just like they knew what they were doing with the performance patch in 2019. A performance patch that broke the game when it came to group content entirely. Or when they did a years' worth of cyro tests at our expense, tanking the pvp population, because everyone already told them those tests would not solve the issue, only for them to admit to it years later and upgrade the server hardware?

The devs do a respectable job in a lot of places, but they are not all knowing, and they do not always know best.

There's a pretty big difference between bugs and performance issues with dealing with old hardware, and not being able to read stats that tell them what players are doing.

The devs know what we're playing. And it's not hard to tell when a customer is engaged. That's the bare minimum for any successful game, and ESO is objectively a successful game.

Jammy420 · January 22

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Jammy420 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

A player who skips through dialogue as fast as possible and only plays quests that give skill points is easily dismissed as a player who doesn't want to actually be there.

Similarly, a player that isn't skipping through the dialogue and plays all the quests, sometimes on multiple characters, can easily be understood to enjoy questing.

A person who spends the majority of their time questing and doing overland while rarely partaking in other content can also easily understood to enjoy questing.

The devs can see all of these things. They know which content we're doing. They know which percentage of the playerbase engages in harder content.

They know who's buying what too.

And they can see the vast majority of the playerbase engage with overland in a way that shows they enjoy it.

They devs know the majority of the playerbase enjoys overland. But, the majority of the playerbase doesn't do PvP. And that's a big part of the game's future. So, I don't see why it being a minority of players that dislike it should mean that we cannot get an optional system.

The only thing the majority liking it tells me is that it shouldn't be a forced change. But there's plenty of ways to add options.

Just like they knew what they were doing with the performance patch in 2019. A performance patch that broke the game when it came to group content entirely. Or when they did a years' worth of cyro tests at our expense, tanking the pvp population, because everyone already told them those tests would not solve the issue, only for them to admit to it years later and upgrade the server hardware?

The devs do a respectable job in a lot of places, but they are not all knowing, and they do not always know best.

There's a pretty big difference between bugs and performance issues with dealing with old hardware, and not being able to read stats that tell them what players are doing.

The devs know what we're playing. And it's not hard to tell when a customer is engaged. That's the bare minimum for any successful game, and ESO is objectively a successful game.

The performance was because of the hardware. There were even professional break downs on why the hardware needed to be upgraded. There is literally no way to tell when it comes to overland unless they were to make a transparent poll for all active engaged players, and for veteran players who long left as to their opinions on the matter and sent it out per email. But they do not, so I err on the side of skepticism.

ESO is successful for two reasons

It is an TES game
There are no other satisfactory MMOs on the market atm that offer something better than what ESO does. That does not mean they are doing a good job.

If this game were released a little later / earlier, or if there were any decent action mmorpgs around, it would not be.

spartaxoxo · January 22

Jammy420 wrote: »

[snipped for brevity]

There is literally no way to tell when it comes to overland unless they were to make a transparent poll for all active engaged players, and for veteran players who long left as to their opinions on the matter and sent it out per email. But they do not, so I err on the side of skepticism.

That's just not true. In fact, it's one of the worst ways to tell because the people most likely to participate in the poll are the people who want something changed. Game developers rely on play data and purchase data to tell them what content their customer base likes because it is far more reliable. It has full participation of all of their players. There is a reason the use of polling is very limited in games.

If they are one of the best MMOs, then they're doing a good job. It not being everyone's cup of tea doesn't mean that they haven't done a good job cultivating a particular audience and then giving that audience things they want.

Jammy420 · January 22

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Jammy420 wrote: »

. There is literally no way to tell when it comes to overland unless they were to make a transparent poll for all active engaged players, and for veteran players who long left as to their opinions on the matter and sent it out per email. But they do not, so I err on the side of skepticism.

That's just not true. In fact, it's one of the worst ways to tell because the people most likely to participate in the poll are the people who want something changed. Game developers rely on play data and purchase data to tell them what content their customer base likes because it is far more reliable. There is a reason the use of polling is very limited in games.

Not if they made a few posts on their social media accounts, added a splash screen in game, and posted here, and combined it with email. This is basic stuff. People who care would actually vote for it. Just because people were unhappy and left, does not mean their opinion is any less valid, especially when ZoS says they are open to constructive criticism, and have said they want to communicate more. Blindly accepting they know best, without any sort of transparency is.....well we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this topic.

spartaxoxo · January 22

Jammy420 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Jammy420 wrote: »

. There is literally no way to tell when it comes to overland unless they were to make a transparent poll for all active engaged players, and for veteran players who long left as to their opinions on the matter and sent it out per email. But they do not, so I err on the side of skepticism.

That's just not true. In fact, it's one of the worst ways to tell because the people most likely to participate in the poll are the people who want something changed. Game developers rely on play data and purchase data to tell them what content their customer base likes because it is far more reliable. There is a reason the use of polling is very limited in games.

Not if they made a few posts on their social media accounts, added a splash screen in game, and posted here, and combined it with email. This is basic stuff. People who care would actually vote for it. Just because people were unhappy and left, does not mean their opinion is any less valid, especially when ZoS says they are open to constructive criticism, and have said they want to communicate more. Blindly accepting they know best, without any sort of transparency is.....well we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this topic.

I didn't just say I blindly accept they know best. I talked about game development. There are things that developers know and things they'd need feedback about. Why someone quit would be a thing they can't just measure with data. But engagement? What activities people do? That's something they have all the data they need to know. No developer worth their salt is just going to develop video games blind. I can trust a dairy farmer to know how to milk a cow. And I can trust a AAA video game developer of one of the most successful games in their genre to know what their players engage in.

Polls are generally much poorer indicators of what people want than data from the entire playerbase. People who want something changed are obviously going to be more motivated to respond to the poll. Polls are good. But they are inferior to having information about every last person in a population.

chessalavakia_ESO · January 22

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Jammy420 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

A player who skips through dialogue as fast as possible and only plays quests that give skill points is easily dismissed as a player who doesn't want to actually be there.

Similarly, a player that isn't skipping through the dialogue and plays all the quests, sometimes on multiple characters, can easily be understood to enjoy questing.

A person who spends the majority of their time questing and doing overland while rarely partaking in other content can also easily understood to enjoy questing.

The devs can see all of these things. They know which content we're doing. They know which percentage of the playerbase engages in harder content.

They know who's buying what too.

And they can see the vast majority of the playerbase engage with overland in a way that shows they enjoy it.

They devs know the majority of the playerbase enjoys overland. But, the majority of the playerbase doesn't do PvP. And that's a big part of the game's future. So, I don't see why it being a minority of players that dislike it should mean that we cannot get an optional system.

The only thing the majority liking it tells me is that it shouldn't be a forced change. But there's plenty of ways to add options.

Just like they knew what they were doing with the performance patch in 2019. A performance patch that broke the game when it came to group content entirely. Or when they did a years' worth of cyro tests at our expense, tanking the pvp population, because everyone already told them those tests would not solve the issue, only for them to admit to it years later and upgrade the server hardware?

The devs do a respectable job in a lot of places, but they are not all knowing, and they do not always know best.

There's a pretty big difference between bugs and performance issues with dealing with old hardware, and not being able to read stats that tell them what players are doing.

The devs know what we're playing. And it's not hard to tell when a customer is engaged. That's the bare minimum for any successful game, and ESO is objectively a successful game.

I don't question if the developers are capable of reading stats.

I question if they actually choose to look at them and follow what they say because the stats are not going to always say what they want.

My impression is many people get into development because they are passionate about wanting to make things in a certain way. The thing is, as games have become more popular the audience has frequently expanded to the point that it is highly unlikely that the passions of an individual actually align with the audience.

I'd argue that while many players like to view games primarily as art and that the success is primarily about the developers passion the reality in my view is that much of the success is about luck, marketing, branding, and effective usage of resources. I'm sure that the developers working on Crucible, Battleborn, and Lawbreakers were passionate about what they were making and that did absolutely nothing to stop them from crashing and burning. SWTOR and ESO both have managed to hang on despite situations that would likely have killed them early on if they hadn't been attached to major IP products.

I've played in many games that were successful where the developers were pretty clearly not following the stats.

For example, Overwatch reworked Mercy's resurrect to attempt to make it less impactful. The thing is, the way they changed it actually made resurrect far more common and more impactful and it ended up tossing of the balance of the game for a year.

Resurrect is a stat the game records.

The game would even notify you when you hit your career best. Lots of people hit their career best on the test server because the resurrect amount was way up. The game would also frequently list the player with the most reses on the end screen. Anyone that was playing the game and watching the amount at all could tell the number was up and that maybe the overall stats should be checked to ensure it wasn't happening across the board.

spartaxoxo · January 22

chessalavakia_ESO wrote: »

For example, Overwatch reworked Mercy's resurrect to attempt to make it less impactful. The thing is, the way they changed it actually made resurrect far more common and more impactful and it ended up tossing of the balance of the game for a year.

Sure. I play that game as well and remember that. But in that case they actually stated that it was not a statistical issue for the rework. Her stats actually showed she was not as powerful as people made her out to be. But they agreed with the playerbase that seeing an entire team ressurect was disheartening and not fun. So they ignored the stats because the dev viewpoint aligned with the player viewpoint.

But saying they don't know what the majority enjoys is equivalent to saying they don't know how often Mercy is picked or if she was winning games.

You cannot extrapolate from a poor design decision that was explicitly stated to ignore stats that they don't know Mercy's pickrate. Nor would a poll give a more accurate picture of how many people use Mercy than the devs seeing her pickrate behind the scenes.

The eso devs insistence on not giving us options aligns pretty neatly with their statements that the majority of the player base enjoys story and exploration. Companies that chase money often operate this way and it's the players that are more into niche things that tend to suffer.

disky · January 22

spartaxoxo wrote: »

A player who skips through dialogue as fast as possible and only plays quests that give skill points is easily dismissed as a player who doesn't want to actually be there.

Similarly, a player that isn't skipping through the dialogue and plays all the quests, sometimes on multiple characters, can easily be understood to enjoy questing.

...

I think the issue with regard the way data like this is interpreted by designers is that there isn't only one possible interpretation of the data. You COULD assume these things, but you could also interpret this behavior to mean that players who want to be challenged are simply bored and so their brains are shutting off.

I can tell you that while I put in an effort to care about what's happening, because I know I'm going to breeze through any challenge, it's much harder to feel invested. It's gotten to the point that I don't even do the story content because it's so unsatisfying. If the devs are interpreting their data to mean that a lack of overland engagement from players who like challenging content is a lack of interest in that kind of content, then they're mistaken.

I'm sure that many players skip through dialog and don't care about the story, but I have no doubt that there are people who, if given a reason to care, would sit up and pay attention. Adding challenge to overland may not completely solve that problem but it sure wouldn't hurt.

Kendaric · January 22

disky wrote: »

If the devs are interpreting their data to mean that a lack of overland engagement from players who like challenging content is a lack of interest in that kind of content, then they're mistaken.

I'm sure that many players skip through dialog and don't care about the story, but I have no doubt that there are people who, if given a reason to care, would sit up and pay attention. Adding challenge to overland may not completely solve that problem but it sure wouldn't hurt.

And why would your assumption be correct and not the devs?

None of us can say for certain how many players would even use a veteran overland/difficulty slider/debuff toggle. All we know is that a some people who frequent the forums want it.
Is it the majority? Unlikely. Is it a large group? Possibly. Is that segment of the player base large enough for the developers to spend their limited resources on a harder overland option? That's a question only the developers can answer and going by their answers so far, it seems pretty clear that they don't want to spend resources on that.

disky · January 22

Kendaric wrote: »

And why would your assumption be correct and not the devs?

In my case it isn't an assumption, because I'm living it. I'm not saying that the devs are even interpreting their data this way, only that the claim that @spartaxoxo made isn't necessarily true. We have very little idea about what ZOS is thinking or what they actually know.

Kendaric wrote: »

Is that segment of the player base large enough for the developers to spend their limited resources on a harder overland option? That's a question only the developers can answer and going by their answers so far, it seems pretty clear that they don't want to spend resources on that.

When we have things like Tales of Tribute appear out of nowhere, a game that I actually really love but most people seem not to have any interest in, I find this argument holds little water. I am not a programmer, I am not a designer, but I know that code which resembles something like what we want for overland already exists in other aspects of the game. I'm not saying it would be copy/paste, but I would venture a guess that it wouldn't take a Tales of Tribute-level effort to implement.

spartaxoxo · January 22

disky wrote: »

In my case it isn't an assumption, because I'm living it. I'm not saying that the devs are even interpreting their data this way, only that the claim that @spartaxoxo made isn't necessarily true. We have very little idea about what ZOS is thinking or what they actually know.

Why would it be the case that a significant portion of the playerbase is primarily engaging in the story and actually listening to the dialogue if they don't find it at least somewhat interesting? If someone is mostly engaged with content they hate, that's on them really. It's not realistic that the majority of players are treating content they despise as content they enjoy

disky · January 22

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Why would it be the case that a significant portion of the playerbase is primarily engaging in the story and actually listening to the dialogue if they don't find it at least somewhat interesting? If someone is mostly engaged with content they hate, that's on them really.

You said yourself that players do story content for rewards. Some do it for the sake of completion. Some people may want to check it out but they bought the DLC for other reasons and it's not their primary interest.

Personally though? I've played content that I want to take part in but don't find engaging because I like being in the world, I enjoy the lore, the characters, the music. It's just that for me, that's no longer enough anymore and I want an actual challenge. Many people like me simply leave the game, as a number of my guildmates have, and I'm starting to lean that way as well. I'm here because I don't want to and I'm trying to get the devs to help me find a reason to stay.

spartaxoxo · January 22

disky wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Why would it be the case that a significant portion of the playerbase is primarily engaging in the story and actually listening to the dialogue if they don't find it at least somewhat interesting? If someone is mostly engaged with content they hate, that's on them really.

You said yourself that players do story content for rewards. Some do it for the sake of completion. Some people may want to check it out but they bought the DLC for other reasons and it's not their primary interest.

Personally though? I've played content that I want to take part in but don't find engaging because I like being in the world, I enjoy the lore, the characters, the music. It's just that for me, that's no longer enough anymore and I want an actual challenge. Many people like me simply leave the game, as a number of my guildmates have, and I'm starting to lean that way as well. I'm here because I don't want to and I'm trying to get the devs to help me find a reason to stay.

Yes, and if you're doing it for the rewards only, why wouldn't you be clicking through as fast as possible? Why would you actively be listening to each piece of dialogue unless you are interested in the lore, characters, etc.

Yeah, it could be more engaging for a lot of people. I don't argue against options.

I argue against the idea that the devs don't know what the majority of the game participates in. And have no way to measure it based off things like engagement. People who don't like the activity just don't do it. And if they don't find enough engagement in what is left, they leave. People who most of their time doing overland, people who make sure to see all the dialogue they can, and who engage in it more than is necessary to get a skill point or other reward are mostly doing so because that's what they want to do.

People who don't enjoy being funneled into dungeons and other content are mostly just quitting, not torturing themselves in overland. Optional difficulty increases would be a good way to get such players back into overland, or back into the game for those that quit over this. So they are a good way to expand who is interested in overland and increase engagement with the content. Difficulty options are good for the game.

KaosWarMonk · January 22

Haven't read the whole thread, not going to.

Initially I thought maybe a difficulty slider so each player could decide how hard they want things with a corresponding variation in the loot you get. But after a while I decided I don't think everything should be more difficult, I mainly think there should be an increase in the number difficult foes to fight. Easy enough for people to avoid, numerous enough for people who want to fight them.

In the wilder area's there should be more 2 star monsters sprinkled around - either singularly/small groups in out of the way places or as a local boss if there's a group of enemies in the area.

I'm also of a mind there should be more wandering baddies like in the Deadlands - maybe not always quite as difficult - have them range from 2 star public dungeon boss difficulty to the 3 star 10M health ones in Deadlands. Again, easy enough to avoid but there if you want a challenge.

Edit - forgot - I do tend to agree being able to select a difficulty when doing a quest might not be a bad idea. Not really sure how it would be possible to implement in a shared space though.

That's my 2gp

disky · January 22

spartaxoxo wrote: »

People who don't like the activity just don't do it.

Yes, exactly. My point is that they may be avoiding it not because they don't like that kind of content, but because they don't like that it's not fun to do. Everyone in this thread arguing for overland challenge improvements wants to take part in overland, but they don't want to do it as it is now because it isn't fun for them. So there's a whole group of people who aren't being counted as engaging with overland content, not because they don't want to engage with it, but because they don't have a way to enjoy it.

That's where your proposed data interpretation breaks down in my opinion. If ZOS believes the people who don't engage with overland simply don't like overland then of course they're going to build it only for the people that engage with it, and forget about the people who could be enjoying it if they had the option to make it more challenging.